On 9/17/10 12:11, Richard S. Hall wrote:
On 9/17/10 11:36, Marcel Offermans wrote:
On 17 Sep 2010, at 18:35 , Richard S. Hall wrote:
From my point of view, approach (1) might not be awesome, but it
results in a simpler process than (2). So, I'd recommend (1). If the
majority prefers (2), then we can do that (although I think we'll
have to run the decision by the board first).
I prefer (1) too.
I could see us combine (1) with (2), releasing implementations with
both our own APIs which gives us the freedom to experiment with a new
API whilst still "supporting what's provided by public releases of
draft specs.
However, this doesn't avoid the IP grey of releasing "unofficial" APIs
in our "official" releases. Effectively, option (2) is a hybrid
approach, since we couldn't make modifications in the provisional API
unless it were available in a public spec snapshot, so any
modifications would have to be done in felix package namespace. Which
sort of makes (2) the worst of both worlds.
I should have been clearer, the two points I raise above are
unrelated...they should have been in separate paragraphs.
-> richard
-> richard
In the end, we are an open source project, so we should stick to
what's available out in the open.
Greetings, Marcel
